Author Topic: Future: DApps, SuperDAC, Third Party DACS, bitshares toolkit and Social Contract  (Read 10518 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline biophil

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 880
  • Professor of Computer Science
    • View Profile
    • My Academic Website
  • BitShares: biophil
I created a poll asking how 3rd-party DAC developers should airdrop: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=10511.msg138222#msg138222

It would be best to come to consensus on this by November 5 so PTS can be priced appropriately before the snapshot!
Support our research efforts to improve BitAsset price-pegging! Vote for worker 1.14.204 "201907-uccs-research-project."

Offline amencon

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 227
    • View Profile
I don't understand the perspective of those who think "the social contract was not fulfilled". In my opinion, that outlook is a result of overly rigid thinking. A social contract shouldn't be like computer code or a math formula. It's not an if then else statement.

It was used to attract investors. It wasn't legal obligation. However III pointed it while marketing AGS/PTS . They didn't put enough effort to warn the investors of the fact that they might not honor it fully. It is a mistake that could enrage a lot of investors. AND induce doubt on their ability to fully fulfill any future promise.

What if honoring the social contract "fully", would probably result in BTSX eventually being worth nothing? The greater good was honored.

+5% +5%  The biggest social contact is to succeed for investors.  That takes precedent over all others.  What good is your "social contact" if your investment goes to zero and btsx/pts/ags are sitting in the dust bin of history?
Come on guys let's not argue based on fear mongering tactics using "what if" statements.  You don't know that this merger won't result in everything I3 has done result in being worthless seeing how they are putting all their eggs in one basket now.

Even BM accurately stated that this move was what he thought was the right decision but that he could be wrong.

If your argument is that no statements or contracts or agreements should ever be binding for BM and I3 because you implicitly trust them to make the right decisions, then that is a perfectly fine argument to make with no need to invoke impossible to prove "what if" scenarios.

I would not call it fear mongering at all. Look at it this way:

They always speak clearly and honestly about the options.

People were upset when they moved away from mining: Now it is common sense!

People were upset when they introduced AGS: Now ICO's are common sense!

People were upset when they introduced DPoS: Now it is our best chance to survive!

People were upset that bitUSD was an experiment: They made it work!

Now people are upset at merger and share issuance, so is this time different? I don't think so; if you watch closely veterans of all stripes on this forum seem to agree with the proposal.
Just because a merger might be successful doesn't mean the old paradigm couldn't have been.  You nor anyone else knows that BTSX as a stand alone DAC was going to die for sure (in fact about a week ago everyone was convinced it was in great shape and going to be greatly successful) so it's disingenuous to use that as an argument why it's OK for I3 to violate the social consensus.  I'm not even arguing that violating the consensus is the wrong move, just that if you want to take the position that there should be no constraints on what I3 can do in the future based on their previous statements, you should make that clear rather than positing some fantasy scenario where BTSX was apparently doomed until a few days ago.

Offline Method-X

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1131
  • VIRAL
    • View Profile
    • Learn to code
  • BitShares: methodx
I don't understand the perspective of those who think "the social contract was not fulfilled". In my opinion, that outlook is a result of overly rigid thinking. A social contract shouldn't be like computer code or a math formula. It's not an if then else statement.

It was used to attract investors. It wasn't legal obligation. However III pointed it while marketing AGS/PTS . They didn't put enough effort to warn the investors of the fact that they might not honor it fully. It is a mistake that could enrage a lot of investors. AND induce doubt on their ability to fully fulfill any future promise.

What if honoring the social contract "fully", would probably result in BTSX eventually being worth nothing? The greater good was honored.

+5% +5%  The biggest social contact is to succeed for investors.  That takes precedent over all others.  What good is your "social contact" if your investment goes to zero and btsx/pts/ags are sitting in the dust bin of history?
Come on guys let's not argue based on fear mongering tactics using "what if" statements.  You don't know that this merger won't result in everything I3 has done result in being worthless seeing how they are putting all their eggs in one basket now.

Even BM accurately stated that this move was what he thought was the right decision but that he could be wrong.

If your argument is that no statements or contracts or agreements should ever be binding for BM and I3 because you implicitly trust them to make the right decisions, then that is a perfectly fine argument to make with no need to invoke impossible to prove "what if" scenarios.

I would not call it fear mongering at all. Look at it this way:

They always speak clearly and honestly about the options.

People were upset when they moved away from mining: Now it is common sense!

People were upset when they introduced AGS: Now ICO's are common sense!

People were upset when they introduced DPoS: Now it is our best chance to survive!

People were upset that bitUSD was an experiment: They made it work!

Now people are upset at merger and share issuance, so is this time different? I don't think so; if you watch closely veterans of all stripes on this forum seem to agree with the proposal.

Offline GaltReport

It was 3I who were going to be creating the vast majority of new DACs for PTS + AGS.  Now that 3I are going to be working on only BTS, the work for those future DACs is included in the PTS + AGS allocation.  There aren't tons of developers as far as I gather planning to release lots of DACs so it's almost entirely taken care of by airdropping to PTS + AGS as proposed.  PTS + AGS feel they are missing out on future DACs, when realistically, almost all of those future DACs were going to be made by 3I and now PTS + AGS have a stake in all their future work.  And just in case there are other developers with other DACs, they can snapshot BTS and include everyone.  It's not perfect as everyone knows but people talk as if they were expecting most new DACs to come from third parties when in reality PTS + AGS was another way to invest in 3I, and that's what they are getting.

Edit:  It appears there isn't a 'social consensus' anymore anyway on who 3rd party DACs (in the rare occasion they exist) they should snapshop in the future so it will probably just be up to the devs as it always was.

I pretty much agree with this.  People are worrying about imaginary future riches that they believe they will somehow be cheated out of.  Everyone has a part in the new DAC, let's make it the best DAC that we can.  It's not perfect for everyone.  Let's please just move forward and make the best of it. 

Offline amencon

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 227
    • View Profile
I don't understand the perspective of those who think "the social contract was not fulfilled". In my opinion, that outlook is a result of overly rigid thinking. A social contract shouldn't be like computer code or a math formula. It's not an if then else statement.

It was used to attract investors. It wasn't legal obligation. However III pointed it while marketing AGS/PTS . They didn't put enough effort to warn the investors of the fact that they might not honor it fully. It is a mistake that could enrage a lot of investors. AND induce doubt on their ability to fully fulfill any future promise.

What if honoring the social contract "fully", would probably result in BTSX eventually being worth nothing? The greater good was honored.

+5% +5%  The biggest social contact is to succeed for investors.  That takes precedent over all others.  What good is your "social contact" if your investment goes to zero and btsx/pts/ags are sitting in the dust bin of history?
Come on guys let's not argue based on fear mongering tactics using "what if" statements.  You don't know that this merger won't result in everything I3 has done result in being worthless seeing how they are putting all their eggs in one basket now.

Even BM accurately stated that this move was what he thought was the right decision but that he could be wrong.

If your argument is that no statements or contracts or agreements should ever be binding for BM and I3 because you implicitly trust them to make the right decisions, then that is a perfectly fine argument to make with no need to invoke impossible to prove "what if" scenarios.

Offline betax

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 808
    • View Profile
Thats why is important to clarify what happens next also, I read some other posts that future third party DACs should only honour PTS + AGS as usual. (@toast). I think on SuperDAC we get 10 + 10 but yes it could have been better.

Now what about the other points in the OP :)
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

Offline James212

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 312
    • View Profile
I don't understand the perspective of those who think "the social contract was not fulfilled". In my opinion, that outlook is a result of overly rigid thinking. A social contract shouldn't be like computer code or a math formula. It's not an if then else statement.

It was used to attract investors. It wasn't legal obligation. However III pointed it while marketing AGS/PTS . They didn't put enough effort to warn the investors of the fact that they might not honor it fully. It is a mistake that could enrage a lot of investors. AND induce doubt on their ability to fully fulfill any future promise.

What if honoring the social contract "fully", would probably result in BTSX eventually being worth nothing? The greater good was honored.

+5% +5%  The biggest social contact is to succeed for investors.  That takes precedent over all others.  What good is your "social contact" if your investment goes to zero and btsx/pts/ags are sitting in the dust bin of history?
BTS: theangelwaveproject

Offline emski

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1282
    • View Profile
    • http://lnkd.in/nPbhxG
Keep it simple, I say.

Just merge the market caps and get it done. The proposal looks to be a simple change from new DACs honoring PTS/AGS to also honoring BTSX, all within a new BTS. The benefits far out way the losses.  +20%  8)

I just tried to point out why people might be upset and what part of the "contract" was breached. There are a lot of perspectives that show the proposed deal as fair.

Offline James212

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 312
    • View Profile
I don't understand the perspective of those who think "the social contract was not fulfilled". In my opinion, that outlook is a result of overly rigid thinking. A social contract shouldn't be like computer code or a math formula. It's not an if then else statement.

It was used to attract investors. It wasn't legal obligation. However III pointed it while marketing AGS/PTS . They didn't put enough effort to warn the investors of the fact that they might not honor it fully. It is a mistake that could enrage a lot of investors. AND induce doubt on their ability to fully fulfill any future promise.


 +5% +5%  The biggest social contact is to succeed for investors.  That takes precedent over all others.  What good is your "social contact" if your investment goes to zero and btsx/pts/ags are sitting in the dust bin of history?
What if honoring the social contract "fully", would probably result in BTSX eventually being worth nothing? The greater good was honored.
BTS: theangelwaveproject

Offline emski

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1282
    • View Profile
    • http://lnkd.in/nPbhxG
Everyone all the time says the social contract was not fullfilled but in which sense?
In this (original) sense.
And more specifically these important bits.
No social contract has been broken! BTS is not a new chain it is BTSX + Vote + DNS <- this alone would not at all justify giving AGS/PTS anything. Ending the recommendation by i3 to honor PTS/AGS and instead honor BTS justifies giving AGS/PTS an extra cut in BTS which should be 10% each imo because the valuation of PTS was about 10% of BTSX during the last month.
I should stop arguing as all of this was said many times. The part for "total lifetime shares ever allocated" will not be fulfilled for future DACs. In the case of further dilution AGS/PTS will not be honored their 10% of the newly issued shares.
Once again I'm not arguing about the percents in the proposal. I'm just trying to explain what was breached in the contract and how. As stated before the proposal is fair in many perspectives.
I still don't understand your perspective completely. I described how I see it here. https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=10454.msg137406#msg137406 Maybe you can describe how your differs based on this
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=10367.msg136081#msg136081 If you want we can speak privately. I'm not sure I can explain it better.
I read that. Can you expand on that? "total lifetime shares ever allocated" what does that mean exactly for you?
What I said in response to that was:
"BTS is not a new chain it is BTSX + Vote + DNS <- this alone would not at all justify giving AGS/PTS anything. Ending the recommendation by i3 to honor PTS/AGS and instead honor BTS justifies giving AGS/PTS an extra cut in BTS which should be 10% each imo because the valuation of PTS was about 10% of BTSX during the last month."
Does that make sense?
You do not include the inevitable dilution via business delegates. New shares are going to be issued but the newly issued shares will not be distributed 10/10 to AGS/PTS. And this contradicts the "total lifetime shares ever allocated" rule. Furthermore for all future DACs post feb28 AGS/PTS holders get significantly less than promised. I've made some calculations here: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=10225.0 .  I understand that it might not be the original intent because this contract exists in another form stating that the allocation is valid only for genesis block. However failure to make this clear is significant fault IMHO.

EDIT1: added a point for future DACs
What is with my argument that BTS is not a new chain which would not give AGS/PTS any right at all?
I agree with you that AGS/PTS get too little but for a different reason.
Maybe we can discuss it on mumble. I am there now and will be until todays mumble at 9 pm eastern.
I cannot join in the next 5 hours.

Offline davidpbrown

Keep it simple, I say.

Just merge the market caps and get it done. The proposal looks to be a simple change from new DACs honoring PTS/AGS to also honoring BTSX, all within a new BTS. The benefits far out way the losses.  +20%  8)
฿://1CBxm54Ah5hiYxiUtD7JGYRXykT5Z6ZuMc

Offline Bitty

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 109
    • View Profile
Correct me if I'm wrong:
Post BTSX snapshot PTS/AGS holders are somewhat screwed but still get their shares in the merged DAC BTS?
PTS/AGS holders will still be honoured by third party DACs that might come out in the future?
Here is how I see it https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=10454.msg137406#msg137406

I guess you are right
Some of us, like myself, invested a substantial amount of money in PTS (and/or AGS) missing out on the BTSX snapshot, strongly having faith in the whole Bitshares platform and the power of the upcoming DACs.
The amount of shares in the new merger we will receive is painfully low, leading to some big losses in value...
The least the devs can do or try doing, is coming up with a solution to honour their early believers and supporters.
There must be some way to do this, right?
Right, it is a balance between the interest group you are in (I am in there too!) and those that bought BTSX on exchanges.  What is needed is a clear reasoning for what is done.

the creation of new shares might be a good solution for everybody:

https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=10225.new#new

Offline santaclause102

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2486
    • View Profile
Everyone all the time says the social contract was not fullfilled but in which sense?
In this (original) sense.
And more specifically these important bits.
No social contract has been broken! BTS is not a new chain it is BTSX + Vote + DNS <- this alone would not at all justify giving AGS/PTS anything. Ending the recommendation by i3 to honor PTS/AGS and instead honor BTS justifies giving AGS/PTS an extra cut in BTS which should be 10% each imo because the valuation of PTS was about 10% of BTSX during the last month.
I should stop arguing as all of this was said many times. The part for "total lifetime shares ever allocated" will not be fulfilled for future DACs. In the case of further dilution AGS/PTS will not be honored their 10% of the newly issued shares.
Once again I'm not arguing about the percents in the proposal. I'm just trying to explain what was breached in the contract and how. As stated before the proposal is fair in many perspectives.
I still don't understand your perspective completely. I described how I see it here. https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=10454.msg137406#msg137406 Maybe you can describe how your differs based on this
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=10367.msg136081#msg136081 If you want we can speak privately. I'm not sure I can explain it better.
I read that. Can you expand on that? "total lifetime shares ever allocated" what does that mean exactly for you?
What I said in response to that was:
"BTS is not a new chain it is BTSX + Vote + DNS <- this alone would not at all justify giving AGS/PTS anything. Ending the recommendation by i3 to honor PTS/AGS and instead honor BTS justifies giving AGS/PTS an extra cut in BTS which should be 10% each imo because the valuation of PTS was about 10% of BTSX during the last month."
Does that make sense?
You do not include the inevitable dilution via business delegates. New shares are going to be issued but the newly issued shares will not be distributed 10/10 to AGS/PTS. And this contradicts the "total lifetime shares ever allocated" rule. Furthermore for all future DACs post feb28 AGS/PTS holders get significantly less than promised. I've made some calculations here: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=10225.0 .  I understand that it might not be the original intent because this contract exists in another form stating that the allocation is valid only for genesis block. However failure to make this clear is significant fault IMHO.

EDIT1: added a point for future DACs
What is with my argument that BTS is not a new chain which would not give AGS/PTS any right at all?
I agree with you that AGS/PTS get too little but for a different reason.
Maybe we can discuss it on mumble. I am there now and will be until todays mumble at 9 pm eastern. 

Offline emski

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1282
    • View Profile
    • http://lnkd.in/nPbhxG
Everyone all the time says the social contract was not fullfilled but in which sense?
In this (original) sense.
And more specifically these important bits.
No social contract has been broken! BTS is not a new chain it is BTSX + Vote + DNS <- this alone would not at all justify giving AGS/PTS anything. Ending the recommendation by i3 to honor PTS/AGS and instead honor BTS justifies giving AGS/PTS an extra cut in BTS which should be 10% each imo because the valuation of PTS was about 10% of BTSX during the last month.
I should stop arguing as all of this was said many times. The part for "total lifetime shares ever allocated" will not be fulfilled for future DACs. In the case of further dilution AGS/PTS will not be honored their 10% of the newly issued shares.
Once again I'm not arguing about the percents in the proposal. I'm just trying to explain what was breached in the contract and how. As stated before the proposal is fair in many perspectives.
I still don't understand your perspective completely. I described how I see it here. https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=10454.msg137406#msg137406 Maybe you can describe how your differs based on this
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=10367.msg136081#msg136081 If you want we can speak privately. I'm not sure I can explain it better.
I read that. Can you expand on that? "total lifetime shares ever allocated" what does that mean exactly for you?
What I said in response to that was:
"BTS is not a new chain it is BTSX + Vote + DNS <- this alone would not at all justify giving AGS/PTS anything. Ending the recommendation by i3 to honor PTS/AGS and instead honor BTS justifies giving AGS/PTS an extra cut in BTS which should be 10% each imo because the valuation of PTS was about 10% of BTSX during the last month."
Does that make sense?
You do not include the inevitable dilution via business delegates. New shares are going to be issued but the newly issued shares will not be distributed 10/10 to AGS/PTS. And this contradicts the "total lifetime shares ever allocated" rule. Furthermore for all future DACs post feb28 AGS/PTS holders get significantly less than promised. I've made some calculations here: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=10225.0 .  I understand that it might not be the original intent because this contract exists in another form stating that the allocation is valid only for genesis block. However failure to make this clear is significant fault IMHO.

EDIT1: added a point for future DACs
« Last Edit: October 24, 2014, 11:18:32 am by emski »

Offline santaclause102

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2486
    • View Profile
Correct me if I'm wrong:
Post BTSX snapshot PTS/AGS holders are somewhat screwed but still get their shares in the merged DAC BTS?
PTS/AGS holders will still be honoured by third party DACs that might come out in the future?
Here is how I see it https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=10454.msg137406#msg137406

I guess you are right
Some of us, like myself, invested a substantial amount of money in PTS (and/or AGS) missing out on the BTSX snapshot, strongly having faith in the whole Bitshares platform and the power of the upcoming DACs.
The amount of shares in the new merger we will receive is painfully low, leading to some big losses in value...
The least the devs can do or try doing, is coming up with a solution to honour their early believers and supporters.
There must be some way to do this, right?
Right, it is a balance between the interest group you are in (I am in there too!) and those that bought BTSX on exchanges.  What is needed is a clear reasoning for what is done.